Messages

541

Originality / Re: 1969 Disc Brake Control Arm Brake Hose Retainer Clips - Correct Finish

« on: June 23, 2017, 11:20:24 PM »

Lloyd - OK, the screw is PN 3958062.  Per AMK, page 116, it appears its available in both phosphate and zinc.   I re-used all the original fasteners whenever possible and inspected them as best I could for original finish.    For the most part, I had almost all of the fuel and brake line clip screws (PN 3958062's) phosphate'd but chose to have those two zinc plated.    Other than that's what I observed at the time, I don't remember why or have other references.

Here's some links from photobucket for these screws:

Fasteners after clean-up, before plating:
http://s1061.photobucket.com/user/jwlittooy/library/Camaro%20Components/Camaro%20Fastners

Brake line clips pre-and post clean-up, plating, and installation:
http://s1061.photobucket.com/user/jwlittooy/library/Camaro%20Components/Fuel%20and%20Brake%20Line%20Clips

Hans, as you did such a good job of photographing the undisturbed underside of the hose retainer clip where the attaching bolt came in contact, did you also happen to photograph the underside of the bolt which would likely have remnants of its original finish?

542

Originality / Re: 1969 Disc Brake Control Arm Brake Hose Retainer Clips - Correct Finish

« on: June 22, 2017, 04:17:13 AM »

Great photos Hans, they are convincing, many thanks. Are you confident the attaching bolt was plated and not originally phosphated?

543

Originality / Re: 1969 Disc Brake Control Arm Brake Hose Retainer Clips - Correct Finish

« on: June 21, 2017, 11:34:33 PM »

Thanks Hans. The photo I posted was just a stock photo however I didn't note a date code on my original clips - will have to take another look.  I have no plans to use repops.

544

Restoration / 1969 Z/28 Camaro "472" Intake Manifold Expansion Plug

« on: June 20, 2017, 06:34:45 PM »

The original, steel intake expansion plug from my 472 intake manifold was lost. I sent the intake to a well known restoration shop for re-skinning and was surprised to see the replacement plug they used was stamped with manufacturers' marks.  The original, factory installed 1 1/4" plugs had no marks so what I now have is incorrect. I have been trying to source a correct replacement steel plug and have ordered them from eBay sellers as well as HBC. Despite the item photos they all arrive with some form of manufacturers' stamping marks. I have even tried to grind out the stamp however the result is not suitable for a quality restoration. The original 302 from my Z/28 which is being rebuilt needed a set of replacement frost plugs which I was able to source from a Corvette restoration parts supplier with no manufacturers' stamping marks however I've been unable to locate a correct replacement intake expansion plug. Anyone have a confirmed source for unstamped, 1 1/4" steel intake expansion plugs?  

472 Intake with an incorrect replacement steel expansion plug showing stamped manufacturers' marks highlighted (source: eBay)



Typical frost / expansion plugs with stamped manufacturers' marks (source: Google images)

545

Originality / 1969 Disc Brake Control Arm Brake Hose Retainer Clips - Correct Finish

« on: June 19, 2017, 06:38:45 PM »

I'm trying to determine the correct finish for the brake hose retainer clips /straps that bolt to the upper control arms on 1969 Camaros with front disc brakes (they may be the same retainers as those used for drum brake applications).  I was unable to locate specific part number(s) for them however they are shown in the AIM UPC J52 A1 Page 359. HBC sells them as flat stock in natural, unplated steel. From what I can determine originals were either phosphated or natural steel. Not painted and not bright plated. From the few examples I have come across they are rarely (badly) rusted which is why I question whether they were installed as untreated. The control arm attaching bolt was zinc manganese phosphated.  Would appreciate your input. 

Original Retainer Clips



AIM

546

Originality / Re: 1969 Z/28 Sway Bar End Links

« on: May 29, 2017, 08:08:28 PM »

The 69 AIM Nut part number is shown in the AMK book as a std hex nut (i.e. NOT Locking style)
I think the constant pressure from the compression of the rubber bushings puts enough preload "locking" pressure on the nut to preclude loosening. Could be an improvement having a 1/2 height 'jam' nut to be SURE it does not back off.

the sample in the picture is FINE thread? correct? (5/16-24UNF)


Originals were 5/16-24 fine thread.  Most original bolt heads were "WB" (per JM).

The 69 AIM Nut part number is shown in the AMK book as a std hex nut (i.e. NOT Locking style)
I think the constant pressure from the compression of the rubber bushings puts enough preload "locking" pressure on the nut to preclude loosening. Could be an improvement having a 1/2 height 'jam' nut to be SURE it does not back off.

the sample in the picture is FINE thread? correct? (5/16-24UNF)

Jim

Originals were 5/16-24 fine thread.  Most original bolt heads were "WB" (per JM).

547

Originality / 1969 Z/28 Sway Bar End Links

« on: May 29, 2017, 02:52:06 PM »

Has anyone seen Pal locking nuts used on sway bar end links on an original 1969 Z?

548

Restoration / Re: 1968 1969 deluxe door panel restore

« on: April 20, 2017, 09:29:30 PM »

Hi Joe,

Yes I have!  I can't tell you how happy I was with the job that Eric did.  You need to ask for Melanie to start with.  I took my original deluxe door and qtr. panels to the Corvette expo and dropped them off.  My original backs were used and they preserved the original fisher writing on the back side, polished my original chrome and reinstalled, etc.  You will not be disappointed!

PM me your email and I will email you photo's of the finished product when I got them back.

Bryan

PM Sent.

549

General Discussion / Re: NEW DISCUSSION GROUP (FORUM)? - Classes and Judging Guidelines

« on: April 15, 2017, 05:27:14 PM »

I was attending a car show in the past, and the owner of a restored 69 Z/28 told me that he had lost points in the judging at the Nationals because his factory original rear bumper chrome wasn't flawless. 

Would like to see the judging sheet, often casual explanations don't match the judging reality. "Flawless" isn't a typical judging criteria or standard.   

550

Originality / Re: Correct Spark Plugs for 1969 Z/28

« on: April 10, 2017, 02:17:53 AM »

Thanks Hans & Chick.

551

General Discussion / Re: NEW DISCUSSION GROUP (FORUM)? - Classes and Judging Guidelines

« on: April 07, 2017, 05:30:24 PM »

Gary, good insight, thanks.  Attending the Camaro Nationals has been on my list for a long time. For those who have the available time and resources there is no substitute for being there and taking it all in. I hope that you and others who have had the privilege will share your experience with other CRG members who haven't. Your perspective and take-aways are valuable.

552

General Discussion / Re: NEW DISCUSSION GROUP (FORUM)? - Classes and Judging Guidelines

« on: April 07, 2017, 12:43:46 AM »

As the originator of this thread I'm pleased the subject has attracted a variety of opinions, some strong.  As a CRG forum participant and contributor who is restoring a 1st Gen Camaro with a view to Judging, I'm at a loss where to find critical information about the process and learn from others who have been through it.  I've never seen a Judging sheet from MCACN or Legends or ? I don't know where to find this information or where to locate advice or engage in dialogue about Judging from those with experience. To the extent this information exists somewhere on the CRG site it's not in an organized form that is easy to access or locate. The search engine route in not effective. If the conclusion is "pick a forum and start a dialogue", that's possible but not nearly as effective or desirable as a destination CRG forum to host the subject.

553

General Discussion / Re: NEW DISCUSSION GROUP (FORUM)? - Classes and Judging Guidelines

« on: April 06, 2017, 08:34:54 PM »

Would like to see input from other CRG members who have thoughtful input on the subject of Judging.

554

General Discussion / Re: NEW DISCUSSION GROUP (FORUM)? - Classes and Judging Guidelines

« on: April 06, 2017, 07:51:38 PM »

Introducing more fragmentation in our hobby is counter initiative and counter-productive, there is clearly much potential content to talk about, learn and share about Judging. A few short years ago "survivors" were a side-bar and given little mainstream attention. If the same thinking were applied to survivors maybe CRG wouldn't have added a Preservation forum and those many interested CRG members would congregate elsewhere, on another forum. That would be a shame and a loss. I think we can and should embrace the expanding interests of CRG members rather than send them
elsewhere. That's just not progressive thinking.

555

General Discussion / Re: NEW DISCUSSION GROUP (FORUM)? - Classes and Judging Guidelines

« on: April 06, 2017, 05:24:59 PM »

There is a misconception that Judging is synonymous with Orginality - it is not. Originality is an important aspect of judging and so is much of the dialogue taking place in the CRG Restoration forum however the subject of Judging is further reaching:
- preparation
- transportation 
- acceptable NOS and restoration parts for judging
- acceptable finishes for judging
- Judging experience - what to do and what you need to know
- the Judging process and how they compare by level and venue
- Judging protocols and decorum
- Judging sheets, point values, deductions and bonuses
- the appeal process
- CRG member debriefs

These are many of the subjects relating specially to Judging that don't have a natural fit in the Orginality forum nor in any other CRG forum at present.